moosterbounce wrote:I think he should be allowed to compete after serving a ban, but I'd like to see something like "if you actually win the ny marathon, then you won't be recognized as the winner". Seriously...he's getting on so I doubt he'd trouble the serious race contenders, maybe the age groupers, so put a "can't win" in place. Stopping someone run a marathon etc - which tend to be personal goals at this age - just because it's sanctioned is stupid. Everyone loves David miller now don't they? Both denied it until caught, just one was more verbal in their denials and took longer to get caught.

Ban him from team races for life so he can't help someone win.

I'd still go to see him compete at anything and would welcome riding with him. I'd take the opportunity for a chat though and ask a few questions. At the end of the day, you could shove as many performance I handing doo-dads in me and I'd still be mediocre at best!!

You have it all wrong. David Millar and him are completely different. Firstly Lance is not remorseful at all, all he regrets is getting caught, he would go out there and do it again if he knew he would not be caught. He even said if it wasnt for his comeback they wouldnt be sitting there. Meaning he would not of came out if it wasnt for him being caught. Millar I believe is actually sorry that he took the drugs, not just that he was caught.

Lance is continuing to lie, him saying he wasnt doping when he came back is just BS, look at his blood profile from the TDF and watch how his hematocrit bounces around as he takes the blood bags. He also said cycling has changed now and that is why he could comeback and compete with the best without doping even though Contador lost his result the year after due to doping. Additionally Anderson has pointed out that one can still do blood transfusions and microdose EPO without being caught. I think if he was to compete again he was just dope again even if it was just the NY marathon.

Lance also bribed and bullied so many people, which is just unacceptable. He is unlike any other cyclist in this way. Also it is probably the worst thing he has done.

No he should not EVER be able to race again because to him that is the biggest punishment, I believe he likes the competition even more than the money and almost as much as the admiration.

@Sogood: He was on EPO and everything pre cancer (some people believe it dates back to his tri days) I believe it was only post cancer even when he was an average cyclist and not a GT contender. What happened post cancer to make him good enough is speculation. I think it may of been the amount of drugs he was taking as he did not care for the consequences, but who knows what it really was.

toolonglegs wrote:Whats short?... short to me is 6 months like all the others got. 2-4 years would be fine by me... and lifetime ban on appearance fees.Being someone who lives to compete a lifetime ban is a bit much... it's only sport, you get a lot less for much more serious crimes.

So him eaning over 100million dollars because of his cheating and fraudulent behavior yet that is all OK. All that money should of went to legitimate people. IMO it is the same as stealing, if someone was to rob a bank or anywhere of similar amounts of money they would be spending a lot of time behind bars. Then there is also the perjury and witness tampering. He should also get done for harassment.

A lot of crimes does not let you work in certain jobs for the rest of your life. His crime was in sport he should not be allowed to compete in sport anymore ever again. He should be back in texas flipping burgers at maccas, that is about as much as he is good for.

vander wrote:So him eaning over 100million dollars because of his cheating and fraudulent behavior yet that is all OK...

Is there a clause in the official rule book that states the punishment will be different if life earning exceeds $100M?

It shouldnt all dopers should receive a similar punishment (much tougher than it currently is) except for the kingpins such as Lance.

If it were up to me anyone that got caught doping should get atleast a 5yr ban. All their previous results backdated (throughout their whole life as you can never be sure when they started) and have to pay back all their money they earned in the time, both wages and prizemoney. This is if they co-operate and if they dont it should be an instant lifetime ban + the loss of money mentioned above + extra money as a fee for having to chase and prosecute them.

Is he? The peloton doping problem is much larger than what Lance was involved in. The only difference is he was far far more commercially and competitively successful than others. Tall poppy he is, Kingpin I am not sure. And when did rules differentiate kingpins to pawns?

Is he? The peloton doping problem is much larger than what Lance was involved in. The only difference is he was far far more commercially and competitively successful than others. Tall poppy he is, Kingpin I am not sure. And when did rules differentiate kingpins to pawns?

Pawns pay over a million dollars to their doping doctors? Pawns force others to take drugs if they want to stay in the team. Pawns dont get opportunities to sit down with the UCI and people like Saugy to talk about the tests (and presumably how not to get almost caught again). Pawns dont make 100s of millions of dollars. Look back at 1999 when everyone was scared post festina affair, of the backdated tests they did almost all the positives in the peleton were Lance's. He played a lot bigger role than he is acting like at the moment. Dont fall for his lies again people.

vander wrote:So him eaning over 100million dollars because of his cheating and fraudulent behavior yet that is all OK...

Is there a clause in the official rule book that states the punishment will be different if life earning exceeds $100M?

No, but the WADA code on sanctions is pretty clear and given the sum of all that he was shown to have engaged in, it would have been 8 years minimum if he had cooperated fully with the investigation, and a lifetime ban otherwise.

vander wrote:Pawns force others to take drugs if they want to stay in the team.

So you're saying they didn't have the choice to say no, give me a break. You have a brain and and if you choose to be weak and lilly livered don't tell me you were forced, to use drugs because that is as weak as <language>. If they/you (not aimed at you) had an ounce of human dignity and the balls to stand up for yourself, then you would have set them up and got the hard proof of what they were doing.

Foo

I don't suffer fools easily and so long as you have done your best,you should have no regrets.Goal 6000km

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Is there a clause in the official rule book that states the punishment will be different if life earning exceeds $100M?

No, but the WADA code on sanctions is pretty clear and given the sum of all that he was shown to have engaged in, it would have been 8 years minimum if he had cooperated fully with the investigation, and a lifetime ban otherwise.[/quote]If there's such a clause, then it's a legitimate outcome.

Regarding the poll options - I wouldn't suggest jailtime specifically or only for defrauding sponsors - but jailtime would be relevant for other things such as lying under oath and other crimes - he did sue others which was just wrong. What I am saying is that it isn't just about the money.

On the "why is Lance different"That he is more prominent and has more victories than others is not reason enoughOther riders havn't hidden or 'lied' to the same extent, though also havn't had the same gains such as the sports betting on his winning which is fraud and netted him millions of dollars. Other riders have, under oath (in the US) told the truth and done deals - Lance Armstrong was offered chances in different cases though chose not to come clean and fight. Other riders are banned after positive tests and the ban is in reference to these and not to further doping or long term doping. The cases for Lance are the long term doping as well has his role in conspiring - organising, so also is accussed of having a role of organising and supplying.

Agree with Alex Simmons suggestion that it is the sum of it all and that the ban would have been much lighter if he had of cooperated.

vander wrote:Pawns force others to take drugs if they want to stay in the team.

So you're saying they didn't have the choice to say no, give me a break. You have a brain and and if you choose to be weak and lilly livered don't tell me you were forced, to use drugs because that is as weak as p**s. If they/you (not aimed at you) had an ounce of human dignity and the balls to stand up for yourself, then you would have set them up and got the hard proof of what they were doing.

Foo

Unfortunately Foo plenty of people that said no and tried to stand up for the right thing were kicked out of the sport not being picked up by any team. That is how Omerta works. There are plenty of stories like that coming out. Additionally if you are not on it you will never even get into the sport as you wont get the necessary results.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:There is no doubt that he had plenty of natural talent and a strong work ethic (you need both) but let's not forget that Lance was doping from the age of 18 (at least).

Here's a question for a pro coach. What do you think allowed LA and his team to win 7 TdF titles when his fellow competitors of the time were all largely on a similar soup?

Apparently it was his low hematocrit of 38. When being able to dope up to 50 (as you could back then) it is a big advantage going from 38 to 50 as opposed to going from 48 to 50. I also believe it was his win at all costs attitude. With his attitude I can see him saying this guy is taking x amount of y I am going to take 2 times that and I will smash him. He said he would of done anything to win I believe that extended to risking his life with the amount of drugs he was taking.

Edit: He wants it both ways, he wanted to be able to deny it (even to the point of taking USADA to court to fight their juristiction) and see if he was able to get away with it, now he didnt he wants to be able to come clean and get the same lighter punishment as he would of got if he didnt fight it. It is ridiculous to even think it. He made his bed now its time for him to lie in it.

Last edited by vander on Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

To those saying, life ban is wrong because more serious criminals get less. It's 'just' a life ban from competitive sports. Criminals get completely different and more severe result (30 jail time for multimillion dollar fraud > lifetime comp. sports ban.). Although, in this case, I believe they should be rather equal... I haven't been into cycling for long, but it doesn't take a die hard tour fan to realize how badly Lance has damaged the sports name.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.